Issue 2 NTEU Chapter 164 newsletter

1. clear the path.
NTEU is also challenging the
validity of the 2008 memo-
randum from then Commis-
sioner Basham providing ex-
ceptions to 5 USC 6101. If
NTEU is successful here, non-
legacy employees may also
be seeing compensation for
past scheduling violations by
the agency.
While everyone knows that
money is tight and staffing
levels are short, these wins
show NTEU’s dedication to
ensuring that CBP employees
are not made the default
answer to fixing agency mis-
management.
From NTEU National
Once again, NTEU has pre-
vailed in its efforts to ensure
that employee rights are pro-
tected and that agency viola-
tions of federal law and their
own regulations do not go
unchallenged.
First, late last year an arbi-
trator sided with NTEU in a
decision originating out of
NTEU Chapter 152, Port Hu-
ron, MI, whereas management
violated the overtime callout
requirements of Article 35 of
the contract. The agency
acknowledged the error but
relied on the old RNIAP to
offer “the next like assign-
ment” as a remedy to the
grievance. The arbitrator
ruled that the “next like over-
time assignment” as a remedy
is not an adequate “make-
whole” remedy. He found
that “[t]he Grievants were
entitled to work the overtime
hours they should have been
assigned at the time they
were available to do so –
when they expected to do
so.” CBP has one more ap-
peal available to this on this
issue, but given that NTEU has
won every other session,
things are looking good.
What this means for you, is
that if you are not offered an
overtime assignment when you
should have been, the agency
owes you the overtime money
you would have earned. A
major change from the past
practice and a ruling that
should ensure managers are
much more diligent when as-
signing OT.
Next, after an extension fight
in arbitration, the FLRA, and
even Federal Court, it ap-
pears that the issue of back
pay due to scheduling viola-
tions for legacy Customs offic-
ers is almost complete. While
the final payout process has
not been fully reconciled,
NTEU anticipates a significant
payout to legacy customs
officers; up to $80K for some
K9 officers on the southern
border. Similar grievances
for legacy Agriculture and
INS officers are pending, but
you can expect this victory to
Big Wins for NTEU and CBP
Employees!
From the President—Sequester and Furloughs
Dear Fellow Bargaining Unit
Members:
As most of you know, the issue
of sequestration and furloughs
is at the forefront of most
federal employees’ minds. In
CBP, management has pro-
posed to furlough employees
for 14 non-consecutive days.
Because of recent develop-
ments, most notably the pass-
ing of a Continuing Resolution
granting CBP more money for
salaries and expenses, fur-
loughs are on hold for now.
The underlying need and ra-
tionale for furloughs aside,
especially considering that
some Agencies are not going
to furlough, CBP and NTEU
have negotiated a series of
measures intended to mitigate
the adverse impact of the
furloughs on employees.
Chief among these is the con-
cession that furlough days
could be served adjacent to
RDOs and periods of A/L,
and that Sundays would gen-
erally not be furlough days.
While nobody wants to lose
10% of their base pay, these
were important concessions
negotiated by NTEU.
While NTEU continues to lob-
by hard against furloughs at
the national level, in a politi-
cally charged and toxic fed-
eral climate, each employee
still retained the right to deliv-
er an oral or written reply to
the proposal to furlough. To
assist employees in this en-
deavor, NTEU helped em-
ployees prepare over 150
replies just within chapter
164. This was a daunting
task, and NTEU was met with
almost complete scheduling
inflexibility by management.
Our replies focused on the
concept that furloughs were
(con’t on page 2)
National Treasury Employees Union
APRIL 2013
VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2
Chapter 164 Newsletter
Inside this issue:
Law Enforcement Liability
Insurance
2
Why do we need a Union? 3
Notification of Investiga-
tion Results
4
Introduction of APC System
at Vancouver Pre-Clearance
4
Blaine Issues and
Grievances
5
Sumas Issues and
Grievances
6
Oroville Issues and
Grievances
7
Victoria/Vancouver Issues
and Grievances
8

2. not for such cause as to aid
the efficiency of the Service,
which, by the way, is the legal
test the Agency must meet
before furloughing employ-
ees.
As far as the replies them-
selves, for the most part a
manager would unilaterally
select a time and date for a
named employee to present
his oral reply, without any
regard for the work schedule
of the NTEU steward tasked
to represent the employee.
Many NTEU representatives
ended up representing em-
ployees on our time rather
than see the employees go it
alone. Once unilaterally
scheduled by management,
CBP just simply refused to
reschedule the replies, insist-
ing, as never before, that all
replies be completed within
14 days of notice. The only
significant exceptions to this,
that I am aware of, were the
flexibility shown by Frontier
Port Director Barthule, and
Blaine Chief Guyote. In my
ten years of being a union
rep., I have witnessed quite a
few examples of manage-
ment being less than flexible
when working with the union
or the employees, but I have
never witnessed this level of
resistance. In some situations,
I believe that employees’
procedural rights, and the
union’s procedural rights,
were violated. If CBP eventu-
ally goes through with the
furloughs, the union will look
to make CBP answer for these
procedural violations, hope-
fully allowing us to overturn
some of the furloughs.
For now, let’s hope that fur-
loughs don’t’ become a reali-
ty, and that the leaders of
both political parties can
come to terms on a reasona-
ble path forward.
Sean Albright,
Chapter President
Sequestration and Furloughs
(con’t from pg 1)
resent the employee. In that
instance, the employee would
be responsible for their own,
often expensive, defense.
Also, if the act was allegedly
committed willfully you may
have to provide your own
defense.
To understand what the
policy covers you need to
review the available policies
and their limitations of. Make
sure the policy covers the
areas that you deem im-
portant or a priority. Policies
can cover administrative
(including administrative off
duty), civil, or criminal or all
three. Some areas/situations
you may want to consider:
Allegations that you violated
the rights of another employ-
ee or a private citizen while
carrying out your official du-
ties
If the allegation results in a
criminal or administrative
investigation, will the insur-
ance policy provide a private
lawyer to represent you dur-
ing the investigation?
If a disciplinary action, such as
a suspension or a removal, is
proposed or taken, will the
policy provide representation
for you until the Merit Systems
Protection Board makes a
final decision?
In cases where you are ac-
cused of a constitutional tort,
will the policy cover attorney
representation and the pay-
ment of any personal judg-
ment against you?
If you are investigated or
prosecuted for an allegedly
criminal act arising out of your
official duties, will the policy
provide legal representation
during the investigation and
the prosecution, until an initial
finding of guilt?
Professional liability insur-
ance can be confusing, and
the decision to buy it is a per-
sonal one. CBP Directive No.
5340-014C; subject: Profes-
sional Liability Insurance 2.1.1
only allows for the reimburse-
ment if you are included un-
der 5 U.S.C. §§ 8331 (20) or
8401 (17) or under 22 U.S.C.
§4823. CBPO’s are not includ-
ed in these sections.
The policy most likely will not
cover representation during
arbitration under a collective
bargaining agreement. An
allegation that concerns a
matter outside the scope of
your duties (e.g., you shoot a
fellow employee in a domes-
tic dispute) would not be cov-
ered by the insurance.
Ask around to see if any su-
pervisors or coworkers have
insurance and see what they
have. I talked to one person
that told me that they do
have it and the person that
recommended it to them has
used it twice and both times it
kept them from losing their
job.
Professional Law Enforcement Liability Insurance
Rayme Chapin
Chief Steward Sumas Area
Is liability insurance really
necessary? I am not an expert
on this subject but, after doing
some research there is a big
difference between Profes-
sional Liability Insurance and
Criminal Coverage Insurance.
If you are looking to purchase
insurance do your homework
and understand what you are
purchasing. There are several
places on the internet where
you can get liability insurance.
The Fraternal Order of Police
(FOP) and NTEU offers plans
for members to purchase;
Chapter 164 does not en-
dorse one insurance provider
or type over another. The
question is whether you should
have insurance to protect
yourself in case you are sued.
Citizens can sue govern-
ment employees alleging
violations of their constitution-
al rights. While it is not com-
mon for employees to be
found personally liable, it is
possible. If you are named as
a defendant in a lawsuit the
Justice Dept reviews whether
you were acting within the
scope of your job. If they
believe you were, they take
over and substitute the U.S.
government as the defendant.
In some cases, such as when
an employee uses a racial slur
while dealing with the public,
the Justice Department has
determined it is not in the
government's interest to rep-
A man who has nothing for which
he is willing to fight, nothing
which is more important than his
own personal safety, is a
miserable creature and has no
chance of being free unless made
and kept so by the exertions of
better men than himself.
- John Stuart Mill
Page 2 CHAPTER 164 NEWSLETTER
Metaline Falls POE

3. VOLUME 1, ISSUE 2 Page 3
Jay Cooper,
Oroville AP Chief Steward
This article is intended to ex-
plain the question posed in
the title; do CBP employees
need a union to represent
them? Part of the answer is
because the federal service is
a huge, lumbering, and imper-
sonal bureaucracy that does
not manage and support its
human resources in a manner
consistent with modern prac-
tices. Decision makers within
the federal service are often
shielded and not held person-
ally accountable for poor or
even illegal decisions. Hence,
they are not systemically re-
strained from violating feder-
al law or contractual agree-
ments regarding the rights
and protections of employees.
While this might sound like the
typical Union position (or
propaganda if you prefer)
think about it and read on
before you decide you al-
ready know the answer to the
original question.
It’s only fair that you know
who’s writing this and where
I’m coming from. I’m an Air
Force combat veteran with 23
-years of service and I’ve
been a CBPO since 2007. I’m
a conservative Tea Party
supporter with a Gadsden
flag flying from the flagpole
in my yard and an NRA life
member sticker on my
truck….and, prior to joining
CBP, I didn’t have much use
for Unions. I think many pri-
vate sector unions have done
major damage to their indus-
try with unreasonable de-
mands; and public sector un-
ions demanding benefit in-
creases during a time of fi-
nancial crisis is unconscionable
to me. That being said, my
“blanket position” on unions
changed drastically after I
joined CBP and got a look at
how things were done. I put
my money where my mouth is
and became a steward the
day after my probation end-
ed in 2009.
It is important to note a cou-
ple of major distinctions be-
tween private and state pub-
lic sector unions and those
unions, like NTEU, represent-
ing Federal employees.
First, union dues for Federal
employees are prohibited
from being used for political
purposes. While other unions
may use their dues money to
support political activities
supported by their leadership,
and not necessarily their mem-
bers, that is not the case with
Federal employees.
For those who pay dues, 28%
of your money stays right
here in the chapter to support
our efforts on behalf of the
Chapter 164 bargaining unit.
The other 72% of dues money
goes to NTEU National to
support national level repre-
sentative efforts.
Second, as federal employees
we do not have any coercive
power in negotiations or bar-
gaining. We cannot partici-
pate in work slowdowns or
threaten to go on strike if the
other side of the table doesn’t
choose to work cooperatively.
If mutual agreement cannot
be reached then we must
make our case in front of a
disinterested third party. This
means that when we make an
argument it must be a logical
and well thought out one.
NTEU does not take frivolous
positions; when we raise an
issue it’s a serious one.
So, to the crux of the question:
why do we need a union to
represent us? The other part
of the answer is that most
employee issues, and the pro-
cesses in place to address
them, are complex and re-
quire a significant amount of
study and interpretation.
Your representatives, from the
steward in your work unit all
the way to your Field Repre-
sentative (lawyer) Dee Ander-
son educate themselves on the
contract requirements, labor
law, agency directives, and
federal regulations and we
monitor the agency’s actions
to make sure they are in com-
pliance. If the agency and
local managers follow the
rules then we have nothing to
do. That being said, I, the
other leaders, and Ms. Ander-
son are always busy.
Locally, we’ve represented
dozens of employees, and
groups of employees,
in the grievance pro-
cess on issues ranging
from bid and rotation
violations to improper
assignment of overtime.
We’ve also saved nu-
merous employees their
jobs which were threat-
ened by excessive
disciplinary action pro-
posed by the agency;
issues that should have been
dealt with with a letter of
reprimand or a short suspen-
sion are instead dealt with
with a proposal for termina-
tion. I liken this agency to an
abusive parent who beats
their child with a stick for the
most minor of infractions,
while on the other hand letting
the favored child get away
with anything. This is not to
say that consequences aren’t
called for when errors are
made, but to terminate some-
one for a first time, honest
mistake, is a waste of tax
dollars and destructive to
people’s lives.
Nationally, in addition to the
bid and rotation rights, our
representatives have secured
a number of arbitration victo-
ries that have resulted in back
pay for employees, secured a
meaningful resolution of
missed overtime assignments
and, most recently, negotiated
an MOU for furloughs that
was extremely beneficial for
employees. Does anyone
believe that they’d have been
able to take their furlough
days in conjunction with their
RDOs or to take those days in
lieu of leave if the decision
had been solely manage-
ment’s? Or is it more likely
that leave would have been
cancelled and furlough days
arbitrarily assigned? Who
would have spoken for the
employees if there was no
union?
Look back at the issues in this
article. Does anyone feel that
they have the means or
wherewithal to take on any of
these issues by themselves; to
essentially challenge the Fed-
eral government? Almost no
one would. But the agency
employs LER specialists and
Why a Union?
attorneys for the sole purpose
of dealing with these types of
issues. So, again, who would
speak for the individual em-
ployee or the group as a whole
if not the Union?
For those who are paying union
dues, you are essentially pay-
ing for an insurance policy for
the entire bargaining unit. You
are paying to ensure that peo-
ple with the skills and expertise
necessary to help you in a dis-
pute with the agency are avail-
able and that the financial
means are there to see the issue
through to the end. An arbitra-
tion costs each side approxi-
mately $5K just to walk in the
door; and a majority of the
time that cost is not recouped
by the prevailing side. How
many of us have $5,000 avail-
able to spend to try and get
compensation for being skipped
for an overtime assignment? Or
even more to pay a lawyer to
try and save your job? Most
people don’t.
So, as I wrap this article up the
answer to the initial question is
yes, absolutely. CBP employ-
ees need to have a union avail-
able to voice their concerns and
represent their needs to nation-
al leaders and as a check
against the abuse of authority
at the local level. Without this,
the individual employee would
have almost no meaningful re-
course to address a dispute.
That is what the Union is
for….to represent you, the bar-
gaining unit member, and en-
sure you are treated fairly and
equitably and that your inter-
ests and concerns are voiced in
a way and in a forum that will
get results.

4. Clint Faulkner
Steward, Danville POE
From time to time, even the
best officers find themselves
under the anxious specter of an
investigation. It can be a
stressful time, so don’t make it
any more stressful by not
knowing your rights. Article
22 of the Collective Bargain-
ing Agreement addresses in-
vestigations. These are some
of the things you need to know:
 The Agency is required to
give you your Weingarten
Rights if you are the
“potential recipient of any
form of discipline or ad-
verse action”; so, basical-
ly, if you are the subject
of the investigation.
 Weingarten rights inform
the subject that they have
a right to have a union
representative present
during questioning.
Weingarten Rights must
be furnished to you in
writing and you must sign
that you have received
them. A copy of the
Weingarten Rights form is
located in Appendix A-2 of
the contract. (Article 22, Sec-
tion 6)
 If Management questions you
and you have a reasonable
belief that Management’s line
of questioning could lead to
discipline, then you have the
right to have your union rep-
resentative present. This in-
cludes a situation where you
were initially told you were
just a witness. If you start to
feel uncomfortable with what
you’re being asked , then get
a representative in there!
 If Management denies you
union representation – GET IT
IN WRITING. If Management
denies your request for a un-
ion representative they must
do it in writing - BUT YOU
HAVE TO ASK! (Article 22,
Section 6, Subsection C)
 Once an investigation is over
and it “does not result in the
proposal of any criminal or
administrative action, the
Agency will notify the affected
employee of that fact”. You
have the right to know
when an investigation is
over. (Article 22, Section
14). Locally, the agency is
not good about informing
employees about closed
investigations that do not
result in something, so be
sure to keep your steward
appraised of the situation
and press for an answer
about what’s going on.
Although investigations can be
stressful, being familiar with
your rights in these situations
can make them more managea-
ble.
And, if you are investigated,
take heart….the majority of
investigations do not end up in
any action being taken at all.
But, it’s important to press for
an answer on the status of any
investigation. And, if discipline
does result, your local steward
and the rest of your representa-
tives will be there to help
you….and we’ve got a good
track record!
Know Your Rights!
receipt to the designated
APC/CBP officer to exit the
FIS area.
Initially, the system was creat-
ed to bypass the immigration
process for Canadian Border
Service Agency (CBSA) to
facilitate entry for returning
Canadian citizen into Cana-
da. CBP wishes to adopt this
new system for “everyone”,
US citizens and aliens, to fa-
cilitate the ever growing pas-
senger load here at Vancou-
ver Preclearance. The agency
determined that the tradition-
al inspections process conduct-
ed by the primary officer and
the time it takes to confirm
and input passenger data into
TECS was inefficient and time
consuming, e.g. swiping pass-
ports, ten printing visa holders
and visa waiver passengers,
and viewing TPAC crossings
history.
This is a clear sign that the
agency’s goal may be to
lower passenger wait times
by sidestepping the primary
inspection process; hence dis-
couraging officer enforcement
mind set. Currently this is just
a pilot program and open to
US citizens only, however, CBP
has plans to implement this
system at five different air-
port POE’s in the US to be
used by all passengers. Full
implementation of the APC
system will impact officer
staffing levels, schedules,
overtime, selection for nation-
al reassignment opportunities,
lateral reassignments, and
possible reduction of
force. NTEU members should
be aware of the agency’s
plans and openly oppose full
scale operations of the APC
system.
Automatic Passport Control System Implementation
Johnny Cheng, Chief Steward
Vancouver Pre-Clearance
CBP is currently implementing
Automation Passport Control
system (APC), a new primary
processing lane at Vancouver
International Preclearance.
Passengers will automatically
admit themselves to the Unit-
ed States using a kiosk ma-
chine without interacting with
a CBP Officer at a primary
booth. These APC kiosks are
linked to TECS and the pas-
senger will have the option to
choose which admission classi-
fication they are entering on,
e.g. USC, B1, B2, WT. After
selecting a classification, the
kiosk will prompt the passen-
ger to answer “Yes” or “No”
to the same questions found
on the Customs Declaration
CBP Form 6059B. The kiosk
will print a receipt confirming
they were processed and the
passenger will present the
Page 4 CHAPTER 164 NEWSLETTER
Example APC Terminal
Investigations; before and after
Recently de-commissioned
Boundary POE

5. Issue Updates:
 The issue of management’s failure to place all employees under the B&R article is going to
arbitration; scheduled for May 29. The issue of the unilateral changes to the AWS sched-
ule at Pt. Roberts will also be arbitrated in this timeframe.
 In the matter of management not posting solicitations for temporary supervisor positions,
Management has agreed to openly solicit for temporary supervisors, with a clear announce-
ment, so all can apply for consideration. The current contract language is vague enough
to make proceeding to arbitration regarding actual the selection process difficult. But
if a selection appears arbitrary or capricious, or based on prohibited considerations
(EEO, whistleblower, etc.) then a new grievance remains a possibility.
 The hardship transfer issue noted in the last issue has been resolved, with the employee’s
request for transfer being granted.
New Issues
 CBP Technicians have been wrongfully denied their full overtime and premium pay, based on
a wrong coding in COSS. CBP has conceded the error, but is disputing the amount of money
owed. Chief Steward Pettaway is handling the case.
 Management has agreed that trainees should not count toward the designated staffing number
for a work unit on any particular day, and that they will not be relocated while in train-
ing. Grievance handled by Steward Jessica Mosley, Blaine
 A grievance has been filed for an employee who suffered an inappropriate forfeiture of an-
nual leave. Grievance being handled by Sean Albright.
 NTEU has reached out to management to expand the telework concept for the non-uniformed
employees in Entry and Import Specialist Division, and to expand AWS to Friday Har-
bor. Waiting for response from management.
Blaine Area
Grievances and Issues
 Since the last issue, NTEU has been involved in a number of pre-decisional input sessions
with management:
 Implementation of the agency’s fitness program was scheduled for the first of May;
prior to the sequester. The Union is pushing to allow employees the option of start-
ing/ending their shift to exercise without being physically present at their duty
station. Also trying to get additional activities to the approved list.
 We will have input on the Nexus Enrollment office configuration. Two office loca-
tions are under consideration in the Blaine area. Once plans are more definite, NTEU
will view the blueprints prior to any final commitments with a contractor. NTEU re-
tains the right to bargain formally and exchange proposals with management
 We have also been given the opportunity to provide input on how the cargo pre-
clearance process should unfold. As part of a 6-month pilot program, under the
agreement signed by Obama and Harper, certain locations will be selected to have car-
go pre-clearance stations. Cargo will be “cleared” before it reaches the bor-
der. Blaine has been selected as a pilot port for this, with the goal of getting the
kinks out before it expands to Buffalo. The union has grave concerns regarding our
legal status in Canada, and we are trying to get answers out of CBP. If we don’t or
can’t get acceptable answers, then we will pursue that in formal bargaining.
Negotiations & Discussions

6.  The Bid and Rotation grievance brought by the Un-
ion over the agency’s decision to only award bids
to 50% of employees has been settled, with the
Agency agreeing to place 100% of employees who
submit a bid.
Sumas Area
Grievances and Issues
Negotiations
 AWS in Lynden has been placed on hold because of changes in
staffing, once things settle down we will pursue this again.
Sumas AWS, management has told the union that they are proceed-
ing with developing a plan, they are not releasing much infor-
mation right now. NTEU has informed management that we would
like the AWS to be implemented with the next Bid and Rotation.
Sumas POE
 Once again, there are no grievances or issues to
report from the Vancouver/Victoria pre-clearance
areas.
Vancouver
Pre-Clearance
Grievances and Issues
Negotiations
 Once again, there are no ongoing negotiations or
discussions to report on from the Vancouver/
Victoria pre-clearance areas.
Victoria, BC

7. Issue Updates:
 The arbitration on the grievance regarding the agency’s failure to pay overtime
for employees from Oroville tasked to work at Ferry will take place in either
late June or mid-July. NTEU anticipates recovering approximately $15K in over-
time due to officers who worked these shifts.
 Use of Force Instructors from Blaine conducted OC and CSB recertification for
all the officers in this area. The grievance on this issue is still being held
in abeyance until final discussions between mgm’t and NTEU are concluded on the
“way ahead” to ensure the problem does not occur again.
New Issues
 A grievance has been filed on behalf of officers at Danville for the agency’s
refusal to pay mileage for the officer’s use of their POV to attend training.
Per Article 16, Section 5D, employees travels from home to a TDY station, in-
cluding for local training (e.g. Firearms and Intermediate Force) and back they
are entitled to actual mileage and expenses in excess of the normal round trip
distance to where they normally report for duty.
Update: Just prior to press time, the Step 3 with APD Alvarez resulted in
the agency conceding NTEU’s position and agreeing to pay the mileage due to
the two grieving employees.
 We continue to have issues with notification of training opportunities and
“sharing the wealth”, if you will, on those that come up. We tried once again
to address this problem at the LMRC in March. Despite what we see as manage-
ment’s obstinate position in seeming to want to deny that an issue even exists,
a new and, hopefully, more transparent process should be in place for next
year.
Oroville Area
Grievances and Issues
Negotiations
 Negotiations over an AWS schedule for the Danville POE ended.
After lengthy discussions and long delays by the management
team, management pointed out that the schedule proposed by NTEU
would result in a doubling of night differential pay for the
port; going from approximately $32K per year to over $60K.
While NTEU does not have an acceptable answer for why it took
the agency almost 5-months to identify this problem, we must
concede that it is a valid one. Given the current staffing
level at Danville, no other acceptable AWS schedule has been
devised at this point. NTEU will continue to monitor the situ-
ation and will take the issue up again when it becomes feasi-
ble.
Wind Turbines at the
new Nighthawk POE